[kenrexford]

Like AWM said (are we agreeing here? weird), with ambiguity, Responder bids 3♦. 3♠ resolved the ambiguity. Spades is the focus major.

[kfay]

awm, on Jun 16 2009, 12:35 PM, said:

I'll go with 4♥ cuebid, confirming six spades, and 4NT RKC♠.

Then again, I do very much prefer to play 3♦ as a "fourth suit forcing bid" on this auction.

I totally would have thought this to be the consensus answer. Maybe I'm wrong.

It seems to me that Partner is 2-5 in the majors. If I'm 5-2 it just seems better to sleep where I lay so I can distinguish between cuebids at the 4-level (making 4♥ a real cuebid in support of spades).

We've found a fit at the 3-level, why continue to search for a fit that might be only marginally better at the 4-level?



Anyway, that being said I could totally make a 180 here and believe that it's COG. I just would have assumed cuebid undiscussed.

[Fluffy]

kfay, on Jun 16 2009, 11:57 PM, said:

We've found a fit at the 3-level, why continue to search for a fit that might be only marginally better at the 4-level?

♠Q7642
♥J10

This isn't so hard to imagine. Partner said he wanted to play in spades, but he only has 2 cards there he doens't know anything about our spots.

[kenrexford]

Fluffy, on Jun 17 2009, 05:20 AM, said:

kfay, on Jun 16 2009, 11:57 PM, said:

We've found a fit at the 3-level, why continue to search for a fit that might be only marginally better at the 4-level?

♠Q7642
♥J10

This isn't so hard to imagine. Partner said he wanted to play in spades, but he only has 2 cards there he doens't know anything about our spots.

If partner held good hearts, he could have bid 3♦. More likely that partner has THAT hand, majors reversed.

[Apollo81]

If I were opener I would bid 3NT on pretty much any minimum hand without six spades, so the 4♥ bid is either a 6-2-1-4 minimum or some sort of cuebid for spades. Since this ambiguity is present, I would bid 4♦ with slam try in spades if I were opener regardless of my diamond holding.

As responder with little slam interest and facing the 4♥ call with no discussion, I would never pass, since 4♠ will always be a reasonable contract and 4♥ might not be one.

As opener facing the 4NT call, I would respond to RKC in spades. Even if partner intended it as RKC for hearts, I bet he's just as interested in the ♠K as the ♥K.

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Jun 17 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

As opener facing the 4NT call, I would respond to RKC in spades. Even if partner intended it as RKC for hearts, I bet he's just as interested in the ♠K as the ♥K.

In practice opener held the king of hearts and not the king of spades. So you would not show that as a keycard?

[Jlall]

kenrexford, on Jun 16 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

Responder is almost assuredly 2533 for his 2NT call.

LOL

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Jun 17 2009, 02:51 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Jun 17 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

As opener facing the 4NT call, I would respond to RKC in spades.  Even if partner intended it as RKC for hearts, I bet he's just as interested in the ♠K as the ♥K.

In practice opener held the king of hearts and not the king of spades. So you would not show that as a keycard?

Correct, even though this would be wrong partnering myself (as I'd have bid 4♦ on any just-spades slam try) and it violates the last bid suit rule. I just think that a lot of people would think spades are "obviously" trumps here so I would cater to that.

[Tcyk]

jdonn, on Jun 16 2009, 04:32 AM, said:

My very good partner and I disagreed when this came up. I then asked two good players and they each agreed with one of us. 2/1, no special agreements.

1♠ 2♥
2♠ 2NT
3♣ 3♠
4♥

What does the 4♥ bid mean, approximately? (Or specifically?)

I have to look at the meanings of the bids.
2♠ is a non-specific rebid, does not promise 6+ ♠s and is a minimum hand. It denies a 5-card minor suit and 3-card ♥ support.
2NT over 2♠ is natural and shows something in the minors. It also denies 6+ ♥s and shows poor support (if any) for ♠s.
3♣ is the better minor and denies 6+ ♠s
3♠ shows 2-card ♠ support. With a singleton spade I would rebid 3NT instead of 3♠ and with a ♠ void I would raise ♣s with four (partner may only have three), bid 4♦ with 4 ♦s and less than 4 ♣ or rebid 4♥ (sigh)
4♥ probably shows Hx of ♥s and a weak 5-card ♠ suit. you are left with the decision of wether to pass or bid 4♠, to play.

[TimG]

A couple people have suggested that 1♠-2♥-2♠ denies three hearts. Is this a generally accepted agreement?

Can the same be said of 1♠-2♥-3m?

I would have though that a possible interpretation of opener's actions in the original post was a 6=3=1=3 hand stronger than what would be shown by 1♠-2♥-3♥.

[gnasher]

TimG, on Jun 19 2009, 02:44 AM, said:

A couple people have suggested that 1♠-2♥-2♠ denies three hearts.  Is this a generally accepted agreement?

Can the same be said of 1♠-2♥-3m?

I would have though that a possible interpretation of opener's actions in the original post was a 6=3=1=3 hand stronger than what would be shown by 1♠-2♥-3♥.

1♠-2♥;2♠ can certainly be 6-3 in the majors: such hands belong in spades more often than not, so you have to repeat spades. Likewise, 3♣/♦ can include three hearts, because with a 5431 type you should explore all the possible strains. You can plan the descriptive sequence 1♠-2♥;3m-3NT;4♥.

After 1♠-2♥;2♠-2NT, I think you should bid 3♥ on any hand where you're planning to play in hearts. (You might also agree to use 4♣/♦ as splinters for hearts on a 6313 type, though my preference would be that these be splinters for spades.)

Finally, if you had followed this route with a 6313 shape, your spades ought to be good enough for you to be keen to play in spades opposite secondary support.

[awm]

TimG, on Jun 18 2009, 08:44 PM, said:

A couple people have suggested that 1♠-2♥-2♠ denies three hearts. Is this a generally accepted agreement?

Can the same be said of 1♠-2♥-3m?

I would have though that a possible interpretation of opener's actions in the original post was a 6=3=1=3 hand stronger than what would be shown by 1♠-2♥-3♥.

Certainly at the time 2♠ was bid, opener could've had three hearts. But holding three hearts, after not raising at first turn it seems weird to now rebid 3♣ rather than raise at second turn. While I suppose one might consider 6-3-0-4 as a possibility, it seems like refusing to raise hearts twice on this shape will sometimes back partner into a corner.

[jdonn]

I never raise hearts directly on a balanced hand with xxx, I rebid something else and back into hearts later in order to keep partner from getting excited. I am quite convinced that it's the right thing to do. But even if a 2♠ rebid can have three hearts, of course no hand with three hearts would then bid 3♣.

[nige1]

Apollo81, on Jun 17 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

As opener facing the 4NT call, I would respond to RKC in spades.  Even if partner intended it as RKC for hearts, I bet he's just as interested in the ♠K as the ♥K.

jdonn, on Jun 17 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

In practice opener held the king of hearts and not the king of spades. So you would not show that as a keycard?

IMO ♥ are agreed but anyway, in this auction, there should probably be 6 "aces" i.e. ♥K is a key-card, even if ♠ are trumps".